A Lynching On The University Of Maryland Campus An Essay

A Lynching on the University of Maryland Campus
An Essay
By Naette Yoko Lee
2017

Introduction
On Saturday 20 May 2017, Richard Collins III was fatally stabbed by Sean Urbanski, a student
of the University of Maryland. According to media reports, Collins was waiting for an Uber with
friends when he was approached by Urbanski. Urbanski is said to have told Collins, “Step left, step
left if you know what’s best for you.”1
Collins refused, saying a simple “no.” He was then stabbed in
the chest and later died at hospital. The killing garnered significant media coverage. As part of the
extensive media coverage the story received, an article was published by the Nation. The story, written
by Dave Zirin, names Collins’ killing a lynching and drew a connection between his death and racism.
Zirin’s article is noteworthy because it is the only one who identifies the killing as a lynching. The
term lynching is uncommon but invokes an era of racial violence in the history of the United States.
This project takes as its text the Dave Zirin story and attempts to analyse its discursive functions.
My project will consider the article as a likely response to the dominant political climate and
as a doorway to the shifting tone of racial discourse in the United States under a Donald Trump
administration. The paper will therefore look at Zirin’s writing as a response to the exigence created
by the 2016 U.S. election and his use of the word lynching as part of a wider move to recognise the
impact of racism in the United States. I contend that Zirin’s article serves a significant rhetorical
function. By introducing the term lynching into the national debate, Zirin not only reconstitutes the
killing as racially motivated but creates a rhetorical situation that is significantly different to those
outlined by the media. The article, therefore, makes two rhetorical moves. In the first instance, it is
reflective of a rhetorically constituted racial climate in which lynching is possible. It is also an instance
of constitutive rhetoric that changes the conversation about racial violence in the United States.
1 Dave Zirin, “A Lynching on the University of Maryland Campus.” The Nation, May 22, 2017.

The first section of this paper will outline the theoretical framework of the project. I will briefly
discuss the concepts of Burkean theories of substance and constitution upon which my major
arguments are premised. I will then consider the theories on constitutive rhetoric intended to account
for the impact of the 2016 presidential election on the racial climate of the United States, Maryland,
and the University of Maryland campus in particular. The following section of the paper will
characterise the author and publication in an attempt to position the article in a wider discursive
context. Next, I will highlight relevant historical events that have contributed to the contemporary
understanding of lynching as a social phenomenon in order to contextualize Zirin’s approach to the
Collins killing. Finally, I will undertake a brief textual analysis of the article to illustrate Zirin’s
rhetorical strategies.
Theoretical Framework
Zirin’s use of the term lynching also marks a shift in the tone of the discourse around racial
tensions in the United States. By identifying Collins’ killing as a lynching, he reintroduces a loaded
term, the disappearance of which has historically served as an indicator of progress toward a society
in which racial difference is less materially significant. Zirin’s invocation challenges the accepted
discourse of a post-racial society. The article foregrounds a particular kind of racial violence that was
thought to no longer exist in America. While in the first instance he can be seen as reporting on a pre-
constituted set of social relationships, the second argument is in itself constitutive, reframing the
conversation for his readership and changing the discursive dynamics.
The theoretical framework of this research is indebted primarily to Kenneth Burke and his
discussion of constitution in the Grammar of Motives. Burke has argued for a constitutive approach to
understanding human motivation that seeks to explain the logic of human interaction. His approach
credits language and symbols with the ability to shape both perception and action. In the following
discussion, I will outline Burke’s approach to constitution including the notion of substance on which

that approach rests. I will also consider subsequent theoretical approaches to constitution and their
usefulness to our understanding of the discursive power of Zirin’s article. In this respect, the
theoretical framework of this paper is presented in two tiers. The first is a purely Burkean
understanding of constitution as way of understanding human interaction such as the Collins murder,
while the second it a broader approach to the kind of constitutive rhetoric, including presidential
rhetoric, that is capable of creating the conditions under which the first type of constitution is effective.
This paper sees Zirin’s article as a discursive move that both articulates the existence of a
rhetorical situation and attempts to shift the approach to discussing contemporary race relations in
the United States. On one hand it is a reflection of existing constitutions and on the other, it is
constitutive rhetoric. Theoretically, it considers the racial climate and the perceived nature of racial
groups as constructions, and language as the tool by which they are created. Racial categorizations are
often treated as being rooted in biology. In light of this, race relations are thought of as contestations
or interactions between or among substantively separate groups. This research, however, treats races
as discursive categories through which hierarchical power relations are formed and maintained. The
assignment of an individual to a named racial category is, therefore, a means of identification that
facilitates the allocation of power. If the murder of Richard Collins is seen from this perspective,
Collins’ identity as an African American becomes a discursive construction and his interaction with
Urbanski, a rhetorically constituted site at which the prevailing arguments over racial identity and their
relationship to citizenship are enacted. The Zirin article is here seen as both reflecting this interplay
and, subsequently, as a feature of the discourse that governs it. Burke’s understanding of constitution
is therefore useful in explaining the nature of these constructions and the role they played in the killing
of Richard Collins.
Burke’s theory of constitution is premised on an understanding of what he refers to as substance.
Substance refers to the nature of a thing, or in this instance an individual, and is often thought to

suggest what it is made of. In terms of race, substance would be thought to refer to an individual’s
genetic composition. Burke’s etymological interpretation of the word, however, reveals that “literally,
a person’s or a thing’s sub-stance would be something that stands beneath or supports the person or
thing.”2
This argument suggests that the substance of the thing, the outward manifestation of which
is taken as an indication of its intrinsic quality, is always determined by what it is not. Furthermore,
Burke writes that “substance”, “used to designate what a thing is, derives from a word designating
something that a thing is not. That is, though used to designate something within the thing, intrinsic to
it, the word etymologically refers to something outside the thing, extrinsic to it.”3
In the context of
this paper, Richard Collin’s blackness is determined relationally and situationally. On May 20th,
his
race, and the consequences of his race, were not determined by what he actually was, but in relation
to his assailant, by what Sean Urbanski was not.
The implications of racial categorization are enacted through the process of constitution. In
its simplest form, a constitution is the coupling of a designation or name and the coordinates for
action that it suggests. Because constitutions are templates for motivation, Burke writes that “to call a
man a murderer is to propose a hanging.”4
Burke’s idea of constitution suggests that motivation is
derived from substance. In other words, what a thing is thought to be made of, determines how it
behaves and this determination prescribes the appropriate mode of interaction. In Burkean terms,
racial identification “reflects real paradoxes in the nature of the world itself—antinomies that could
be resolved only if men were able…in actual concrete operations, to create an entire universe.”5
In
this universe, Richard Collin's placement in the category of African American was a declaration of
2 Kenneth Burke. “A Grammar of Motives,” (Berkeley: University of California Press,1955), 22.
3 Burke, “A Grammar of Motives,” 23.
4 Robert Wade Kenny. “The rhetoric of Kevorkian’s Battle,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 86, no.
4 (2000): 386-401.

substance and a prediction of how his inherent potentiality will be actualized. His potentiality,
oppositionally constructed to Sean Urbanski’s, was the criterion for Urbanksi’s action. It is what Locke
describes as “the supposed, but unknown, support of those qualities we find existing”6
and would
ultimately determine Sean Urbanski’s actions. The identification of a racial classification activated the
process of constitution. Richard Collins' blackness, therefore, determined the scope and nature of the
action that Sean Urbanski could rationally take.
At this point, it is important to return to the text and its dual functions. Firstly, the word
lynching points to the constitution that motivated Urbanski’s action. Secondly, the use of the term –
the naming of the event – suggests a calculus of motives to the reader. Burke’s “dramatistic analysis
has as its point of departure in the subject of verbal action.”7
To him, symbolic communication as
“not merely an external instrument, but also intrinsic to men as agents. Its motivational properties
characterize both ‘the human situation’ and what men are ‘in themselves’.”8
As such, the use of a racial
category is more than a biological referent; it is a declaration of substance that simultaneously generates
the motivations that “naturally” proceed from it. As a racially motivated crime, the murder of Richard
Collin’s obeys a calculus in which someone constituted as African American is naturally subject to
violence. Urbanski enacted the discursive relations in which he was entitled to react violently to
Collins' substance, which in the context of this argument is determined in opposition to Urbanski’s own
whiteness. Zirin’s use of the word lynching, therefore, points to an era in which the penalty of being
constructed in opposition to whiteness is death. The term reframes the interaction between the two
men and removes the accepted conventions under which they were constituted as equals regardless
of race, revealing a discursive universe in which Urbanski’s actions are a natural consequence of what
Collins was believed to be.
6 As cited in Burke, “A Grammar of Motives,” 52.
8 Ibid, 33.

Zirin’s insight itself is indicative of another layer of constitution that this essay addresses. His
use of the term lynching is a contribution to an ongoing debate on the racial climate of the United States
and can be seen as, in the context of this paper, the most recent of many constitutive rhetorics already
at work at the time of Collin’s killing. Before considering Zirin’s contribution, we must examine the
constitutive rhetoric that enabled Urbanski’s perception of Collins’ substance and constitution.
This paper argues that the 2016 presidential election profoundly altered the perception of and
relationship between racial groups in the United States. While the nature and extent of the constitutive
power of presidential rhetoric are subject to debate, the ability of the president to influence identity
and potentiality is well documented in communication scholarship. In her analysis of the 1906
Brownsville Raid, Mary Stuckey has argued convincingly that presidential rhetoric is fundamental to
the constitution of minoritized American identities and that presidential power is reinforced through
the rhetoric of inclusion and exclusion9
. Likewise, other scholars have viewed the “American people”
as a discursive construction that is modified through presidential rhetoric that has the capacity to unify
the citizenry10
around a common cause by dissolving different, or to materially deconstruct the legal
personhood of exteriorized groups.11
Zarefsky has argued that because of “his prominent political
position and his access to the means of communication, the president, by defining a situation, might
be able to shape the context in which events or proposals are viewed by the public.”12
Through his
definition of the social situation, the president normalizes the worldview inherent in it, “as if it were
9 Mary, Stuckey. “Establishing the Rhetorical Presidency through Presidential Rhetoric: Theodore Roosevelt
and the Brownsville Raid.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92, no. 3 (2006) 287-309.
10 Derek Sweet and Margaret McCue-Enser. “Constituting ‘‘the People’’ as Rhetorical Interruption: Barack
Obama and the Unfinished Hopes of an Imperfect People.” Communication Studies 61, no. 5 (2010):
602-622.
11 Vicaro, Michael Paul, “Deconstitutive Rhetoric: The Destruction of Legal Personhood in the Global War
on Terrorism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 102, no. 4, (2016): 333-352,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2016.1209547
12 David Zaresfky. “Presidential Rhetoric and the Definition of Power.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3
(2004): 611.

natural and uncontroversial”13
. Seen from this perspective, the rhetoric of the 2016 Presidential
campaign had the potential to alter contemporary views of race, specifically non-white identities
including African Americans.
Beginning with his participation in the birther movement, Donald Trump’s candidacy
consistently stressed the exclusion Stuckey identifies in her writing. Moreover, it provided an
ideological basis upon which some Americans chose to construct their material world.14
Donald
Trump’s references to “the blacks”15
reintroduces and emphasizes stereotypical notions of African
Americans common to the era in which lynching was prevalent. By centering “whiteness” in his
campaign, Donald Trump identified and excluded other groups from the American that he promised
his presidency could deliver. Trump’s “discourse claims that diversity, a perceived monstrous tide, is
the reason why America is no longer great. The metaphor of monstrosity expresses White fears about
the loss of their majority status and sharing privileged spaces with Others.16
” This paper treats the
emboldening of white supremacist groups and other forms of the intensification of racial tensions as
an indication of the exclusionary reorientation of the substance of African Americans in the national
psyche. Trump’s presidential rhetoric constituted white Americans “as subjects through a process of
identification with a textual position,” ,a position that is ideologically and materially distinct from
African Americans.
It is in the context of this constitutive presidential rhetoric the Zirin re-introduces the notion
of lynching to the discourse on race. By describing Collins’ death as a lynching, Zirin is making an
argument for the existence of the conditions in which a lynching is possible. As a journalist, Zirin is
13 Ibid. 612.
14 Maurice Charland. “Constitutive Rhetoric: The case of the Peuple Quebecois.” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 73, no. 2 (1987): 143.
15 Kathleen Parker, “Donald Trump and ‘the blacks.’” Chicago Tribune, August 31, 2016.
16 Amanda, Martinez, “Monstrosities in the 2016 Presidential Election and Beyond: Centering
Nepantla and Intersectional Feminist Activism.” Women’s Studies in Communication 40, no. 2 (2017): 145.

putting the means of communication to work against the prevailing understanding of race relations in
America and giving voice to the potentiality for violence.
This paper will analyse the Zirin text to reveal the ways in which he introduces the concept of lynching
to his audience and constructs a version of the United States in which race-based killing is possible.
Furthermore, it will show how by rejecting contemporary descriptions of race-based violence and
opting to use the term lynching, Zirin begins the process of constituting a rhetorical situation in which
Richard Collins’ death can not only be understood but explained.
Lynching in Context
The Zirin article is situated in multiple, interrelated historical and contemporary contexts. In
the first instance, the term lynching raises the spectre of a time of intense racial injustice and violence
in the history of the United States. We must, therefore, consider the meaning of the term in its
historical context in order to comprehend the impact of his usage in the rhetorical text. The historical
context of the act of lynching is also significant, since Zirin’s reference is, in fact, painting a picture of
an era in the history of the United States and suggesting that the survival of discourses from that era
in the modern society.
Understanding the Author
Dave Zirin is a political sportswriter and the Sports Editor of The Nation. His weekly sports
column, “Edge of Sports”, investigates the intersection of politics and sports, taking a notably
progressive stance on current events. Zirin has covered contemporary and historical issues in sports.
Among these is the story of John Carlos, the American athlete who raised a black power salute while
receiving a bronze medal for the 200m race at the 1968 Summer Olympics. The book, co-authored
with the athlete and public intellectual Dr. Cornell West, tells the story of Carlos’ Olympic stance and
its political implications. The publication “included plenty of humour, historical anecdotes and

sometimes depressing moments, all written in a conversational manner17
” and helped to establish Zirin
as a political writer.
Even as a sportswriter, Zirin has taken an overtly political position in his coverage. His choice
of topics also reflects an interest in issues surrounding race. In November 2017, Zirin joined the
chorus of commentators covering the Colin Kaepernick protest. In his piece, Zirin argues for the
significance of Colin Kaepernick as a rhetorical icon. The piece, an editorial, contends that
Kaepernick’s advent can be explained by the fact that “people also yearn for icons, people who are
tenacious that they can look toward. People who become reference points when others talk about the
importance of resistance or are shown on flat screens at Fall Out Boy concerts18
.” This is significant
since it explains Zirin’s interest in the Collins’ killing which is in keeping with an overall trend in his
writing. More importantly, it accounts for his perspective on race issues in the United States.
Zirin has also developed a reputation for engaging in controversial issues and has repeatedly
called for the boycotts of teams, states and nations for various political reasons. In April 2010, while
writing for the Guardian, Zirin called for a boycott of several Arizona teams in protest of the Arizona
Senate Bill 1070 which instituted harsh penalties against illegal immigrants.19
He has also contributed
to discussion on international politics, supporting the decision of the Turkish U-19 soccer team’s
refusal to play against Israel.20
Zirin’s activism has not been limited to the criticism of teams and
extends to individuals as well. In 2011, he openly referred to singer Hank Williams Jr. as a racist in an
interview with ESPN following Williams comparison of Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, and showed
support for Barry Bonds the hatred for whom Zirin attributes to racial prejudice21
. Collectively, Zirin’s
17 Vaughn, Shamontiel, “'The John Carlos Story: The Sports Moment That Changed the World' by
John Wesley Carlos and Dave Zirin.” Chicago Tribune, September 30, 2011.
18 Dave Zirin, “Why Colin Kaepernick matters so much.” The Nation, November 3, 2017.
19 Dave Zirin, “Arizona: Boycott the Diamondbacks.” Guardian, April 27, 2010.
20 Dave Zirin, “Are teams right to refuse to play Israel.” The Nation, June 2, 2010.
21 Dave Zirin, “The Juice and the Noose.” International Socialist Review 50, (2006).

publications reflect a continued interest in social justice issues and race in particular. Moreover, his
approach to writing about race has typically been controversial. In this context, his coverage of the
Collins killing can be seen less as a new report intended to provide information and more of an
editorial explicitly intended to reframe the event as a part of a broader discourse on racial inequality
and violence in the United States and motivate his audience to consider the relationship between
sports and politics.
Constructing the Audience
The reputation of The Nation magazine and its circulation is pivotal to understanding its
audiences, their expectations and the reception of Zirin’s writing. The Nation, founded in New York
in 1865 by publisher Joseph H. Richards and editor Edwin Lawrence Godkin, is the oldest
continuously published periodical still existing in the United States.22
From its inception, the
publication was critical of social injustice, and garnered its original reputation by expressing its
disapproval of government corruption and civil service abuses during the Reconstruction era.
Throughout its life, the magazine has maintained a decidedly leftist position on local and international
issues. Even so, it has faced criticism in the past for its advertising policy. In 2004, it was criticised by
the Anti-Defamation League for advertising the Institute for Historical Review, which it is alleged
promotes holocaust denial. Despite these concerns, the magazine has referred to its 1979 advertising
policy which confronts the issue of competing views and says “ethics and practicality are interwoven
throughout the substance of the issue of how to enable journals of opinion to survive and expand
their reach. We do not pretend that troublesome problems are absent from this question.”23
The
advertising policy of the Nation is a strong indicator of the publication’s approach to conflict. It is this
22 “The Nation: American journal,” Britannica.com, last modified August 28, 2017,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Nation-American-journal
23 “Advertising Policy,” The Nation.com, accessed November 5, 2017,
https://www.thenation.com/advertising-policy/

approach that has created a platform for the unpopular views often expressed in Zirin’s writing. The
survival of the Nation and its sustained readership of between 145,000 and 187, 000 can be interpreted
as interest in the publication’s political position if not support for it.24
The impact of Zirin’s article goes beyond the Nation’s regular subscribers. Responses to the
publication of his piece extend beyond the State of Maryland. According to another article by Zirin,
published soon after “A Lynching on the University of Maryland Campus,” “The feedback was
overwhelming. People expressed anger, sadness, and a strong desire to fight the racist right. In
addition, a small group of people took issue with my use the word “lynching”.25
Zirin argues for the
political importance of referring to the Collins’ killing as a lynching and refutes the argument that mob
is required for a murder to be defined as such. The piece further contends that in 2017 violent
“groupthink” does not require the presence of a mob and positions the stabbing as “part of a tradition
of homegrown violence aimed at black and brown people as an instrument of terror. If we don’t see
Richard Collins III in the centuries-old continuum of lynchings, we are helping whitewash what took
place.”26
Zirin’s written defense of his first article can be seen as a reaction to the impact of the original
text.
The text can also be considered in the context of a wider discourse on lynching at work around
the time of Collins’ death. On May 22, 2017, Mississippi state representative Karl Oliver called for the
lynching of those lobbying for the removal of confederate monuments in neighbouring Louisiana in
a Facebook post. Oliver was quoted in the Washington Post as saying:
The destruction of these monuments, erected in the loving memory of our family and fellow
Southern Americans, is both heinous and horrific. If the, and I use this term extremely loosely,
“leadership” of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical
24 Jeremy Peters, “Bad news for liberals may be good news for a liberal magazine.” New York Times,
November 8, 2010.
25 Dave Zirin, “Why I Called the Murder of Richard Collins III a Lynching.” The Nation, May 25,
2017.
2017.

monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED! Let it be known, I will do all in
my power to prevent this from happening in our State.27
A day later the post would be removed. While there is no causal connection between the death of
Richard Collins and the statements of Representative Oliver, the currency of the term lynching can be
seen as part of what one commentator referred to as the “rhetoric of hate” circulating in the United
States at the time of the killing. According to CNN correspondent David Love, “language and images
of lynching are re-emerging as tools of violence, intimidation and oppression. Society must identify
and address this form of hateful rhetoric, or ignore it at our peril.”28
Love echoes the sentiment
expressed in Zirin’s second piece that “how we define a racist mob in 2017 matters.”29
The reception
of the article must therefore be seen in the context of prevailing discourses on race in which the term
lynching was again gaining prominence.
A history of violence
The significance of Zirin’s headline is only relevant in the wider context of the history of
lynching in the United States in general and the State of Maryland specifically. The term is an allusion
to an unpleasant era in the U.S. past and its use is an indicator of a shift in the way race is perceived
in the United States. Any interpretation of the effect of the headline must be situated in several
overlapping contexts. The first consideration is the evolution of the usage of the term lynching, where
it originated and how it was applied, particularly in press coverage. Secondly, the act of lynching in
U.S. history: the explanations for the lynching phenomenon, the circumstances surrounding lynching
events and public reaction to it, must be taken into account. This is particularly important since social
context of lynching is implicit in Zirin’s use of the term. In essence, by describing Collin’s death as a
27 Amy Wang, “Lawmaker apologizes after saying leaders ‘should be LYNCHED’ for removing
Confederate statues.” Washington Post, May 22, 2017.
28 David Love, “Lynching re-emerges in new rhetoric of hate.” CNN, May 23, 2017.
2017.

lynching, Zirin is suggesting that the conditions that permit a lynching exist. Finally, the specific history
of lynching in Maryland must be considered in order to gauge the impact of the event and the
rhetorical text on the community.
To understand the significance of the term lynching it must also be considered in its
philological linguistic senses. Despite many scholarly efforts, the origin of the term lynching remains
unclear. In most instances, it is considered to be a mid-19th
century derivation of the term “Lynch's
law named after Capt. William Lynch, head of a self-constituted judicial tribunal in Virginia c 1780.”30
The term lynching has been associated with older words such as linge - to beat with a shoemaker’s
leather thong known as a lingel and linch and means to beat or mistreat. However, the advent of the
term “Lynch Law” points to a historical personality as the origin of the term. This reasoning is
substantiated by the “fact that in the early days even its derivatives were usually spelled with capital L,
indicating that the practice was called from some person of that name.”31
In each variant of the
speculative philology of the word “ynch”the term is thought to have originated with an official ruling
or judgement that was noted for its brutality or executed by a group of citizens. In its linguistic context,
the term lynch”refers to the extrajudicial punishment or killing of a person in an unnaturally savage
manner. These conditions are, therefore, also implicit in Zirin’s choice to use the term in the headline
of the text.
There are also several contemporary definitions of the term lynching in circulation. Many of
which are raised in the discussion over the use of the word Zirin’s article. It is possible to argue that
the rhetorical force of the term, as it is used in the text, rests on these definitional concerns. Lynching
is general understood to be a product of mob violence. The Oxford Dictionary defines lynching as
when “(a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by
30 Oxford, s.v. “Lynching,” accessed November 4, 2017,
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lynch
31 Albert Matthews, “The Term Lynch Law.” Modern Philology 2, no.2 (1904): 181.

hanging.”32
This is similar to definitions used by the media in the coverage of the event. In one article
it is defined as “to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission.”33
Likewise, academic definitions include the presence of a mob as definitive of a lynching.34
Zirin also
offers a similar interpretation. According to him,
The Tuskegee Institute in 1959 provided us with the clearest definition of a lynching: 1) Met
death illegally; 2) Three or more persons participated in the killing; and, 3) the group was acting on
the pretext of justice, race or tradition (vigilantism).… To me, the second criteria from Tuskegee is no
longer a requirement for a lynching.35
Zirin goes on to argue for a shift is how the mob required to define a lynching is constituted.
Despite minor variations in the way that lynching is understood, the definitional components of a
violent, mob-implemented, extrajudicial killing in order to inspire terror are consistent. Noting how
the term lynching is understood clarifies the context of Zirin’s text since it identifies the way in which
his usage is a departure from the general understanding of the term but also the impact that the use
of the term would have on the audience.
The history of the United States is punctuated by moments of race-based tension.36
These
phases are often marked by an increase in violence. Lynching as an example of racially motivated
violence is a matter of historical record, especially during the Reconstruction and Civil War eras, during
32 Oxford, s.v. “Lynching,” accessed November 4, 2017,
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lynch
33 Amy Wang, “Lawmaker apologizes after saying leaders ‘should be LYNCHED’ for removing
Confederate statues.” Washington Post, May 22, 2017.
34 William Ziglar, “The Decline of Lynching in American.” International Social Review 63, no. 1 (1988):
15.
2017.
36 Carden, Art, and Christopher Coyne. 2013. "The political economy of the Reconstruction Era's
race riots." Public Choice 157, no. 1/2: 57-71; Jack Katz, “Culture within and culture about crime: The case of
the “Rodney King Riots.” Crime, Media, Culture 12, no.2 (2016): 233 – 251; Melissa Fussel, “Dead Men Bring
No Claims: How Takings Claims Can Provide Redress for Real Property Owning Victims of Jim Crow Race
Riots.” William and Mary Law Review 57, no. 5 (2016): 1913-1948.

which it was used a method of social subordination.37
Several explanations have been forwarded for
an increase in race-based killings. Some scholars have attributed lynching to economic factors
suggesting that black migration to Southern manufacturing areas during the accounts for the 3, 224
deaths at the hands of lynch mobs between 1889 and 1900.38
In her investigation of the relationship
between economic competition and lynching Soule contends:
Historical and sociological explanations for lynching and other forms of racial violence are
varied, but historians and sociologists agree that forces that increased competition between
groups for economic and/or political resources heightens intergroup antagonism (Blalock
1967; Bonacich 1972; Higgs 1977; Olzak 1989b, 1990; Wright 1986). Factors such as increasing
immigration and migration into a system and economic contraction decrease the amount of
available resources in the environment. As this occurs, competition for these limited economic
resources increases (Higgs 1977; Olzak 1989b, 1990). Com- petition between groups for
resources occurs in the political arena as well. Factors such as an increase in the size of the
minority group in a population and the rise of political power of a minority group threaten the
politically dominant group (Blalock 1967).39
Similarly, Pfeifer argues that in Milwaukee and Newburgh, competition with African
Americans for social and economic power coupled with racist political ideologies many Irish
communities “enacted homicidal collective violence that sought to avenge Irish kinfolk victimized by
alleged African American criminality.”40
In this respect, lynching can be interpreted as a method of
terror intended to prevent the social and economic advancement of African Americans.
Understanding historical lynching in these terms is instructive since it brings the features of the social
climate invoked by Zirin’s use of the term into sharp relief. By describing Collins’ death as a lynching,
the rhetor is drawing a connection between the killing and the advent of ethnic solidarity that is
37 William Ziglar, “The Decline of Lynching in American.” International Social Review 63, no. 1 (1988):
14.
38 Soule, Sarah, “Populism and Black Lynching in Georgia, 1890-1900.” Social Forces 71, no. 2 (1992):
431.
39 Soule, Sarah, “Populism and Black Lynching in Georgia, 1890-1900.” Social Forces 71, no. 2 (1992):
432-433.
40 Michael Pfeifer, “The Northern United States and the Genesis of Racial Lynching: The
Lynching of African Americans in the Civil War Era.” The Journal of American History 97, no.3 (2010): 622.

“pivotal to the emergence of racial violence as a developing concept of ‘whiteness’” in the face of
perceived social equality for African Americans.41
A lynching event in the history of the United States can be seen as a rhetorical response to the
exigence of social, economic and legislative shifts that threaten the supremacy of the white community.
Similarly, the coverage of lynchings in historical newspapers can be interpreted as interventions in the
national discourse on race. Generally, newspaper coverage of lynchings, particularly in the 1930s,
condemned both the killings and the official response to them. News coverage and editorials
highlighting the failure of government officials to prevent lynchings was a recurrent theme in the
press. The 1933 San Jose lynching case, in which the kidnappers of a girl named Brooke Hart were
killed by a mob, the Governor of California responded to media inquiries by asking “Why should I
call out troops to protect those two fellows?”42
Meanwhile, in reference to a the 1932 lynching of Euel
Lee, one commentator faulted state officials for his death claiming that “The courts, the police and
the State’s attorney and even Governor Ritchie joined in refusing to arrest the lynch gang leaders who
broke into the Snow Hill jail trying to lynch Lee.”43
A survey of coverage of lynchings during the 1930s
suggests that state officials did little to prevent lynchings or seek justice when one occurred. This sense
of complicity is also a salient theme in Zirin’s article.
While lynchings occurred throughout the United States, the State of Maryland has a unique
history with respect to this particular kind of crime. In response to the Governor of California’s
question on the San Jose lynching one newspaper declared, “he has his answer in Maryland where a
crowd attempts to release from custody of the authorities supposed members of a mob which lynched
41 Michael Pfeifer, “The Northern United States and the Genesis of Racial Lynching: The
Lynching of African Americans in the Civil War Era.” The Journal of American History 97, no.3 (2010):
622.
42 Christian Science Monitor, “Mirror of the world’s opinion: What the press of the United States thinks
of lynching.” December 6, 1933.
43 Brent, Bill, “Lynch Law in Maryland,” Baltimore Afro-American, January 9, 1932.

a negro a few weeks ago.”44
Other media outlets paint an equally bleak picture of Maryland’s official
response to lynching. Headlines from the 1930s include: “Maryland’s shame as seen from afar”;
“Maryland Barbarians”; “Lynch Law in Maryland”; and “Maryland off honour roll of lynch states.”45
According to one of these articles the “brutal lynching of Matthew Williams was condoned. In defense
of it, race hatred was preached up and down the Eastern Shore.”46
The story goes on to suggest that
“when the mob gathered around Princess Ann Jail Tuesday night, this tolerant attitude toward
lynching must have been present in the minds of those whose duty it was to defend the prisoner.”47
Yet another article claims:
The three most likely places in the United States where a lynching may occur are: Florida,
Mississippi and the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Some of the most brutal lynching outrages
have occurred in that section of Maryland that lies across the bay from the main body of the
state.48
As told by the press record, the history of lynching in the State of Maryland is a narrative of
injustice in which the victim is offered no protection. It tells the story of officials and a community
that are complicit in lynching, disregarding or justifying it at various points and facilitating the release
of the perpetrators when possible.49
In the context of Maryland’s legacy of lynching, David Zirin’s text
is part of a tradition of media coverage focused on making a discursive intervention in a discussion
that is inherently biased against the victim.
44 Christian Science Monitor, “Mirror of the world’s opinion: What the press of the United States thinks
of lynching.” December 6, 1933.
45 Baltimore Afro-American, “Maryland off honor roll of lynch states.” February 6, 1932; Cleveland Call
and Post, “Maryland Barbarians.” February 22, 1948; Brent, Bill, “Lynch Law in Maryland,” Baltimore Afro-
American, January 9, 1932; The Sun, “Maryland’s shame as seen from afar.” October 21, 1933.
46 Baltimore Afro-American, “Maryland off honor roll of lynch states.” February 6, 1932.
47 Ibid.
48 Cleveland Call and Post, “Maryland Barbarians.” February 22, 1948.
49 McDonald, James, “Four in Maryland held as lynchers freed by court.” New York Times, November
30, 1933.

Contemporary Context
One of the key features of the coverage of historical lynchings was the role played by officials
in facilitating and excusing the crime. This official response can be extended beyond the purview of
state governments to the central government. Specifically, scholars have noted the historical response
of Presidents to lynching incidents and the capacity of those responses to shape the national
perception of the event. An understanding of presidential rhetoric as an element of a text’s wider
context is central to a sound analytical approach.50
The constitutive power of presidential rhetoric to
frame the public understanding of and response to lynching crimes is illustrated by the reactions of
Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Theodore Roosevelt to incidents of race-based violence during their
respective terms. Following the lynching of eleven Italian Americans in Louisiana on March 14, 1891,
President Roosevelt condemned the actions. While neither the president nor the federal government
did anything to intervene in those instances where blacks were killed in lynchings or mob violence
citing statutory duty or lack of jurisdiction, the condemnation helped to shape the public impression
of lynching. In like manner, Calvin Coolidge’s claim that “if the United States was unable to protect
its negro citizens, it was in fact unable to protect any of its citizens” defined lynching not only as a
crime but as the responsibility of the government to prevent.51
The analysis of the Zirin text and the
audience it was intended for, must consider the presidential rhetoric at the time as part of its context,
due to the definitive role presidential speech plays in moulding the prevailing discourse.
Richard Collins was killed on May 20, 2017, approximately six months after the election of
Donald Trump and more than a year of intensive political campaigning in which race was a recurrent
issue. While it is not possible, or useful, to make a causal connection between the rhetoric of the
50 David Zarefsky, “Presidential Rhetoric and the Definition of Power.” Presidential Studies
Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2004): 607-619.
51 The New York Amsterdam News “President Coolidge Decries Lynching.” January 19, 1927.

Trump campaign and presidency, and the killing of Richard Collins, it is worthwhile to describe the
rhetorical context in which the Zirin article that recounts the murder is situated. There are two ways
in which to interpret the impact of the 2016 election rhetoric on the contemporary discourse on race.
In the first instance, consideration should be given to the ways in which the campaign defined the
relationship among racial groups in America in terms that reflect the social climate in which lynching
was common. Secondly, the ways in which Trump’s rhetoric normalised race-inspired hate and
potentially justified violence are also noteworthy.
In many ways, the rhetoric of the Trump campaign exacerbated tensions similar to those that
existed during the historical period in which lynching was commonplace. According to Douglas
Kellner:
Trump’s anti-PC brigades saw their white male privileges under assault during the Obama
years, when whites were no longer necessarily seen as superior to blacks and people of colour,
men were challenged by uppity women, gay and lesbian marriage and rights were allowed, and
immigrants were allegedly permitted to pour into the country and takeover “American” jobs.52
The 2016 election reminded the American population, and the observing world, of the abiding
division between the country’s racial groups: a separation initiated by the systematic eradication of
indigenous people, reinforced by slavery and entrenched by a collective resistance to successive waves
of immigrants. As a candidate, Trump’s discursive strategies had the power to awaken latent social
tensions and reinforce the idea that white supremacy was under threat in the United States. Noting
the power of rhetoric as a force for “hope and change” during the 2008 presidential election, Collier
Myerson contends that Trump enlisted the rhetorical power of the presidential candidate in service of
52 Douglas Kellner, “Brexit Plus, Whitelash, and the Ascendency of Donald J. Trump.” Cultural
Politics 13, no. 2 (2017): 138-139.

“emboldening white nationalists and strengthening what used to be a white supremacist fringe.”53
Zirin’s categorisation of Collins’ death as a lynching, must be considered in this context.
The rhetorical strategies used by Donald Trump to garner the support of a predominantly
white voter base, also served to simultaneously alienate those that did not belong to that racial group.
By centering whiteness in his campaign Donald Trump identified and excluded other groups from the
American that he promised his presidency could deliver. Trump’s “discourse claims that diversity, a
perceived monstrous tide, is the reason why America is no longer great. The metaphor of monstrosity
expresses white fears about the loss of their majority status and sharing privileged spaces with
Others.”54
The America projected by Donald Trump began to materialise not long after the election.
Within ten days of his presidential victory the Southern Poverty Law Center registered 900 “separate
incidents of bias and violence against immigrants, Latinos, African Americans, women, LGBT people,
Muslims, and Jews.”55
Following an analysis of 2,500 of Donald Trump’s tweets, one scholar
concluded that President Trump’s “simple, impulsive, and uncivil Tweets do more than merely reflect
sexism, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia; they spread those ideologies like a social cancer.”56
The
rhetorical context of Zirin’s declaration that Collins was lynched was heavily influenced by the rhetoric
of Donald Trump. It is not that Trump’s rhetoric is being interpreted as the cause of Collins’ murder,
even though there is evidence to suggest that the climate created by the campaign discourse
emboldened Urbanski. Instead, it is Zirin’s conscious decision to raise the spectre of a painful period
in America’s history that is a natural extension of the discursive trend initiated by the 2016 election.
53 Meyerson, Collier. 2017. "Covering a country where race is everywhere." Columbia Journalism Review 56,
no. 2: 31-33.
54 Amanda, Martinez, “Monstrosities in the 2016 Presidential Election and Beyond: Centering Nepantla
and Intersectional Feminist Activism.” Women’s Studies in Communication 40, no. 2 (2017): 145.
55 Alejandro de la Fuente, “From the Editor: The Whites’ House.” Transition 122, (2017):
56 Brian L. Ott, “The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement.” Critical Studies in
Media Communication 34, no. 1 (2017): 64. DOI: 10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686

David Zirin’s article is not an isolated artefact. It exists in tandem with other rhetorical texts that tell
the story of a new era of racial unrest in the history of the United States. The article must be analysed
in the wider discursive and historical context that both contribute to and explain it.
Textual analysis
Throughout the course of the article, it is clear that the author is sympathetic to Lieutenant
Collins. In contrast to the coverage of the deaths of unarmed African American men in the United
States, there is no suggestion that Collins was to blame in any way for his death. This theme of
blamelessness is enhanced over the course of the article as Zirin describes his various achievements.
He writes that “Richard Collins III was about to graduate from Bowie State University on Tuesday.
He was airborne certified. He was a son, a friend, and active in his church.”57
In the first sentence, the
nearness of his graduation, very much like the fact that he was just about to leave the campus when he
was killed, suggests the arbitrariness of the circumstance of his death. The reader is led to think that
he almost graduated from his program in the same way he almost made it to safety on the night that he
was killed. Additionally, mentioning his pending graduation also makes the case for the value of the
life that was lost. Zirin also identifies Collins by his military rank and military activity, invoking a lexical
field associated with service, diligence and discipline. It also suggests that if warranted, lieutenant
Collins was trained to defend himself against attack. This further endears him to the reader since the
assumption is that his refusal to fight may have been a choice. He concludes this argument by
juxtaposing Collins accomplishments with Urbanski’s supposed perception of him. He writes that
despite all that Collins was, “to Sean Urbanski, a University of Maryland student, he was black.”58
57 Dave Zirin, “A Lynching on the University of Maryland Campus.” The Nation, May 22, 2017.
58 Dave Zirin, “A Lynching on the University of Maryland Campus.”

The author’s characterization of Urbanski’s view of Collins as reductive and dismissive is
instructive. To the writer (and possibly the reader) Collins was a valuable member of society. It is a
comparative argument that suggests that to Urbanski it was not possible for Collins to be all these
things and black at the same time. To some degree the writer is defining racism. This is the foundation
of the wider argument Zirin makes about the racial climate on the University of Maryland campus and
the United States in general. It also underlies a feature of Zirin’s article, which is to present the
University of Maryland Campus as complicit in the killing of Richard Collins. To begin, the article’s
headline “A lynching on the University of Maryland Campus,” the word “lynching” is stative and not
active. While the term lynching is itself a verb, it is the subject of the statement. Instead of making
Lieutenant Collins, the victim, the subject of the headline, by stating that he “was lynched” the author
turns the verb into a noun and makes it the focal point of the statement. It is, is therefore, not so
much an event but a state of being on the University of Maryland Campus.
Zirin goes on to substantiate his characterization of the University of Maryland Campus by
saying “make no mistake about it—this was a lynching, a lynching committed by a UMD student.”59
Here he employs a resumptive modifier that draws the reader’s attention to the importance of the use of
the term “lynching”. Additionally, while the author uses standard style throughout the article, the
phrase “make no mistake about it” is something of a departure from the style. It is more conversational
and closer to the lower style. He continues that:
Urbanski, as has been widely reported, is a member of a racist Facebook group called “Alt-
Reich: Nation But that’s also not all he is. He’s a college student who grew up in the leafy
suburban environs of Severna Park, Maryland. He hung out at Adele H. Stamp Student Union,
studied at McKeldin Library, and wore his Baltimore Ravens gear around campus. He was not
an interloper or an outsider. He is a homegrown terrorist who grew out of the soil of this
college campus. The sooner that the administration and the student body reckon with that
reality, the better.60
59 Ibid.

Zirin achieves many things through this sequence. First, he chooses here to describe the Facebook
group as racist instead of using other euphemistic terms. This is the next step in the development of
the argument begun Urbanski’s dismissal of Collins’ achievements. The author establishes that
Urbanski’s attitude toward African Americans was well known before the crime was committed. He
then utilises the ironic voice, presenting information that suggests that the killer had a privileged
upbringing. His very specific description of Severna Park lends credibility to his argument. He is again
revisiting the normalcy of the killer’s life. Zirin is constituting an identity for Urbanski that facilitates
his argument that Richard Collins’ death was the result of a race-based killing.
Further references to Urbanski’s routine student activities tie him, his actions and his views
securely to the University of Maryland. His normalisation as a student also normalises his views of
Collins and suggests they are common to the campus. When juxtaposed with the mention of
Urbanski’s association with an Alt-Reich Facebook page, Zirin suggests that it is possible to be both
a member of the University of Maryland community and a racist. By saying that Urbanski was not an
interloper or an outsider, Zirin is making the argument that the killer’s views were accepted within the
community. While Urbanski may have been many things, he was always and continues to be a
“homegrown terrorist”. The author uses eduction in the preceding sentences to describe Urbanski in
terms that suggest normalcy. The naming of places and activities typical on the UMD campus aligns
him with any other ordinary student. However, when Zirin reminds us of Urbanski’s crime, we also
align his propensity for murder with the group of people to which he was affiliated in the last three
lines. Furthermore, the sequence of sentences that list Urbanski’s characteristics is an example of
ennumeratio. In this series, the terms are separate but equal. The sentence that accuses Urbanski of the
crime of lynching is the final part of a series of sentences, and is therefore where the author places the
most emphasis. Of all the things said of the killer to this point, Zirin would like the reader to consider
this the most important. Zirin has argued that, not only did Urbanski kill Richard Collins, but that he

and his actions are representative of the racial climate of the University of Maryland; a climate in which
a lynching is possible.
Zirin then makes a case for the relationship between the climate at the University of Maryland
and the election of Donald Trump. In his next sentence he argues:
The UMD campus has seen racist chalkings, nooses, flyers, and threats since Donald Trump
took office. And yes, one would have to be willingly obtuse to not see a direct line from having
open white supremacists in the Oval Office to the emboldening of the perpetrators—not just
at UMD but, according to NPR reporting, at campuses across the country.61
Zirin chooses here to refer to the University of Maryland as a whole community. It is also a community
that, at this point, he expects the reader to be familiar with. The acronym is used under the assumption
that it will be understood. The argument for the relationship between the Collins’ death and the 2016
election is developed here. Zirin ties an adverb clause (Since Donald Trump took office) to the predication
(the UMD campus has seen racist chalkings) to establish causality or the relationship of the
subordinate clause to the main clause. As a result, the reader is able to interpret Donald Trump’s
election as the reason for the rise in racist activity on campus. Firstly, Zirin addresses potential doubts
in the mind of the audience about the relationship between the Trump presidency and the killing of
Collins. This is one of his fundamental arguments. Secondly, the term one represents the use of the
objective voice and creates a universal audience. In this instance, the audience is defined as “the rhetor’s
conception of what a correctly prepared and endowed audience.”62
Thirdly, Zirin establishes that the
potential for further violence is not limited to the University of Maryland campus, a sentiment
62 Fahnestock, Jeanne. Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion. (Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 2011), 286.

expressed earlier in the piece, further distancing himself by attributing the information to an
independent source.
Having made his argument, Zirin begins the conclusion of the article with a call to action and
further rationalisation of the seriousness of the claim made in the headline. He is calling on his
audience to respond to the lynching he has constituted.
There is a fight now that needs to be joined. Every available resource needs to be mobilized.
Pretending that the murder of Richard Collins III is somehow an isolated incident will only
make the situation worse. The FBI is not some anti-racist battalion. Without a mobilization
against all forms of white supremacist hate, more innocent blood will spill.63
Zirin enhances his call to action through the use of amplification. Specifically, he uses anastrophe,
inverting the elements of the sentence architecture in order to create emphasis. Instead of ending the
sentence with now, he ends it with joined, emphasizing the need for solidarity rather than the urgency.
The use of “now”, however, is not insignificant since it identifies the context of the exigence to which
the rhetor must provide an answer. According to Fahnestock, “written texts often have to carry their
own exigence with them, like a turtle carrying a shell.”64
Zirin, therefore, uses this line to identify the
rhetorical situation to which he is responding. The use of fight also begins a metaphor of struggle that
the writer will continue through to the end of the article. Even as Zirin uses the FBI’s potential
categorisation of the Collins murder as a hate crime to support his overall argument, in this sentence
he continues the military metaphor by excluding them from the fight. Here he is arguing that in the
context of the struggle for racial justice the FBI cannot be relied upon to in lieu of public support.
Zirin concludes his argument with the military metaphor, staying in the lexical field of war. He makes
reference to more innocent blood, again claiming innocence for Richard Collins as the first of this
64 Jeanne Fahnestock. “Rhetorical Style: The Uses of Language in Persuasion,”. 332

innocent blood to be spilled. The use of the preposition without is used to create a causal relationship
between mobilization and the spilling of innocent blood.
Conclusion
This essay, as an individual project, is limited in its scope and what it can accomplish. The
theoretical approach it employs is significant, however, since it uses a perspective not commonly
applied to an understanding of race relations in the United States. The application of Burkean theory
to an understanding of the constitution of human relations is a useful repurposing of a foundational
text. It creates opportunities to understand the way in which racial identity is constructed and perhaps
can also be used as the premise for rhetorical intervention. In addition, this analysis of the Zirin article
is also useful since it provides a framework for understanding the constitutive nature of news coverage
and the potential for it to both reflect and influence the discourse. Finally, this project is significant
because it enters the name of Richard Collins into the scholarly record. This analysis provides a lens
through which the terrible loss can be viewed and understood. It is hoped that this and other analyses
of the material effects of the discursive positions that rhetoric creates can move scholarship and
society toward a resolution of the confusion that tragedy of this nature necessarily evokes.
Update: in April 2019 Sean Urbanski was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the
possibility of parole. The defense argued that Urbanksi’s mind was “poisoned” by white supremacist propaganda, though
hate crime charges were tossed late in the trial. No mention is made of the political climate that may have contributed to
Urbanski’s views and led to Collins’ death.

A Lynching On The University Of Maryland Campus An Essay

A Lynching On The University Of Maryland Campus An Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Lynching On The University Of Maryland Campus An Essay

Similar to A Lynching On The University Of Maryland Campus An Essay (9)

More from Scott Donald

More from Scott Donald (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Lynching On The University Of Maryland Campus An Essay